Global Warming: Is it Real or is it Not?

[HellOnEarth]

I once believed it was a concoction of the human imagination...

Until I read this in the papers:


ExxonMobil paid to mislead public

Wed Jan 3, 2:15 PM ET

ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.

The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change."

ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report.

Many scientists say accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants.

ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for "public information and policy research" distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

But in September, the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research "significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company." It said the groups do not speak for the company.

Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or cherry-picking facts.

Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to "create the illusion of a vigorous debate" about global warming.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_bi_ge/exxonmobil_global_warming

[Ferret]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/enviro_wackos/algore10yearstodoom.guest.html
I love the little clock...

[Onoria Westhrop]

It's called framing a debate. The media use it all the time. Simply by asking the question, you imply that there is somthing to debate. There isn't. But the media like to have an argument because it sells ad space. Same with creationism.

[HellOnEarth]

I don't understand a word you just said. But it's all good. :)

[HeinleinFan]

Ah, global warming. The issue becomes confusing for several reasons. Among them:

A. There is disagreement in the scientific community about what is causing global warming.
B. The world has experienced warming and cooling trends before. Remember, the Vikings once had farms and sheep ranches in Greenland; it must have been much warmer then than it is now. Which leads to problem C . . .
C. What is the Earth's "normal" temperature? We've been making accurate measurements for only a century or so. If we are at a "below-normal" temperature, then interfering with the natural climate cycle might not be wise at all.
D. Everyone has a stake in whether or not the world is heating. Politicians need the publicity. Lawyers need publicity and money. Taxpayers want to know that their euros are being well-spent. And the Union of Concerned Scientists, which has fewer real scientists in it than they'd like you to think about, has made people's careers by making the environment their top priority. Now, this does not mean they are wrong. It does mean that they are more likely to take neutral information and twist it so that global warming sounds more dangerous than it is.
E. Last, there are numerous countries that will continue industrializing no matter what. Are you going to tell China to slow down, and make your words stick?

Having said all that, I may have already tread on some folks' toes, and I hereby apologise. But if global warming were a major problem in the near future, and if I had infinite money and resources, this is what I would do as a moderately informed layperson:

I would spend money to find out which areas of the world will suffer most, and treat those areas first. Europe has the North Atlantic Conveyor to worry about; I want to know precisely how the NAC will be affected by warming.

I would get a lot of iron and prepare to spread it in the open ocean. If you want the details of why it would work, send me a Private Message; it will take too long to explain here. But the end result would be reduced CO2 levels. The only problem: we would not be able to recover the CO2 once it was used.

Finally, I would set up a large number of nuclear reactors. There are people who have been told that these are evil and dangerous. Google "hormesis cancer radiation reduce" to see why this biology major isn't falling for it.

Surely there are other steps. Come to think of it, if the interested Members here were to come up with an idea for reducing global warming, we could send the answers to our various forms of governments and rest happy in the knowledge that we've helped the world.

[HellOnEarth]

Nyah, nyah, nyah. You are one naive man, lol.

You live in Australia.

If you lived in England, it would be a whole another story; cause you would see it first hand. :)

[newguy]

hey,
look at it in another pespective...
Maybe it IS a roose
but if we had not believed in the lie, how much air pollution would be choking us each morning?
how many more people would have contracted a variety of different lung diseases?

[Crazy Ivan]

Global warming is real.

Global warming sucks.

Global warming should be ACTED UPON!

And even if you don't think it exists, is that an excuse for you to throw bushels of paper in the trash, hop into your SUV, and drive off to buy a nice big pack of aerosol cans? NO! Even if you don't believe in global warming, you should act in the best way possible to stop it!

[HellOnEarth]

This site is very liberal.

What did you guys think of Chrichton's State of Fear.

I bet you were all gushing with praise and adulation. :)

[Domoviye]

The air does need to be cleaned up, no question. All the chemicals that go into it are killing us. Look at the smog covering all of the major cities.

As for global warming, I'm not as concerned about it. Sure lets keep an eye on it and use try to emit less greenhouse gases. But Cows emit about 15% of the greenhouse gases produced each year. And as HeinleinFan said, Earth's temperature fluctuates fairly regularly.

Also to add credence to the idea that the warming trend may be natural, Mar's ice caps are shrinking rapidly right now.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html

That's my two cents.

[HellOnEarth]

Ignorance is bliss, my friend.

[The Freshmaker]

I wonder if anyone has read this (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/12343892/can_dr_evil_save_the_world/1) article, and what you think about geoengineering as a means to help remedy the global warming problem?

[Resident Mexican]

I don't know if I'm resurrecting a dead thread but, I know plenty about climatology, as that is this years Acaded Super Quiz topic.

In the past century, the average global temperature of the earth has risen .6 +or- .2 degrees celcius. This might seem like a nearly worthless gain, but when compared to the volstok ice cores in antarctica, it becomes clear that this is the fastest rise in temperature ever. We are in the Holocene Interglacial currently, which has never deviated more than .01% in it's average temperature.

The problem is, of course, is that scientists don't know what has caused this change. period. The fastest computer simulations can perform Billions of calculations per microsecond, and even then it would take about a year to figure out what might happen 5 years from now. After that, the model just isn't accurate enough.

However, based on previous data, it would seem that the climate is heading towards an emian type climate(you don't want to know what that it. Baaad news for the human race). Either way, it is in out best interests to learn how to moderate our own climate.

The good news is that the algeal blooms that would result from an emian-type climate would also suck almost all of the carbon-dioxide from the atmosphere. Then again, it would also kill most marine life. Very tricky situation.

We would do well to keep our phytoplankton friends happy. That would most likely save our sorry buts! :D

-Resident Mexican

[TWErvin2]

Global Warming:

There is strong evidence that the earth is warming slightly. The question is, what, if anything, has man done to contribute?

If one is old enough remember, in the 1970s it was the threat of a new iceage that was all the rage. As was stated in an earlier post, the earth warms and cools.

One of the main "greenhouse" gasses is water vapor. Not much that man can do about that. That leaves the final 20 percent. But in the calculations that many use, they ignore the 80% water, thus increasing the "impact" of man's industrialization. Certainly skews the impact of man.

It is also being reported that Mars is warming too. Could it have anything to do with the sun? Studies which observe the light reflected off the moon also indcate a minor increase in the sun's intensity.

But then again, you will find scientists that will argue the other side.

I also remember 25 years ago, people claiming that we'd be overpopulated such that everyone would be scrambling for food, and basically starving.

Read all you can, from reputable sources. Find out who is funding those sources, just to get a better idea if there is any bias, and then make your own decision.

I for one believe that the earth is warming a bit. Man has very little if any impact on that. Will some suffer due to the disruption in what has been "normal" in the recent past? Very much so.

Terry

[Resident Mexican]

Global Warming:

There is strong evidence that the earth is warming slightly. The question is, what, if anything, has man done to contribute?

Since it's inception, the earth has warmed and cooled in cycles every 10 million or so years. This is due to orbital variations brought on by the gravitational effects from Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn. No problem there. What you don't realize, TWErvin, is that the earth would be 2* celcius colder than it is now were it not for the effect of man. Coinciding with the inception of agriculture, mankind has actually staved off a global cooling trend, another Ice Age. This would have been fine had we remained an agrarian society, but the industrialization of humanity really screwed things up.

This is because if a few farmers can stave off an Ice age with the realeased carbon Dioxide from deforestation and methane from the flooding of southeast asia, just think of what 200 years of spewing carbon Monoxide into the atmosphere at the rate of 50 parts per million a year. Just think about it.


If one is old enough remember, in the 1970s it was the threat of a new iceage that was all the rage. As was stated in an earlier post, the earth warms and cools. I agree. Did you know that the 1980's was the hottest recorded decade in existence. It's pretty funny how newer information invalidates older information, but that's how science works. Keep in mind there were no climate computer models in the 1970's. The whole "ice age" concept was based on astronomical data, and guess what? We would be in an Ice Age if Agriculture had never happened!


One of the main "greenhouse" gasses is water vapor. Not much that man can do about that.

Sorry to say this, but where do you get the "main", part? Carbon Dioxide and Methane warm the earth at exactly the same rate as Water Vapor. There is more water vapor, true, but 99.9% percent of that water vapor is trapped in clouds, which reflected sunlight back into space the last time I checked.


That leaves the final 20 percent. But in the calculations that many use, they ignore the 80% water, thus increasing the "impact" of man's industrialization. Certainly skews the impact of man.

See above.


It is also being reported that Mars is warming too. Could it have anything to do with the sun?

It has to do with the dramatic shift in Mars's poles that occur every 23,000 years.


Studies which observe the light reflected off the moon also indcate a minor increase in the sun's intensity.

The sun is increasing in intensity all the time. As it uses up fuel, it get's brighter. I learned that in chemistry class in high school. The effect on earths atmosphere is marginal.


But then again, you will find scientists that will argue the other side.

I also remember 25 years ago, people claiming that we'd be overpopulated such that everyone would be scrambling for food, and basically starving.

Funny you should say that. It has nothing to do with the debate, but it would be chemically impossible to produce the amount of food we currently have if not for the invention of nitroglycerate-based fertilizer. That's exactly the same chemical that was used in WWII to produce bombs, by the way. We would be starving if we stuck with horses and plows.


Read all you can, from reputable sources. Find out who is funding those sources, just to get a better idea if there is any bias, and then make your own decision.

I agree.


I for one believe that the earth is warming a bit. Man has very little if any impact on that. Will some suffer due to the disruption in what has been "normal" in the recent past? Very much so.

Well, if we were following the "normal" scheme of climate scheduling, we would be in an Ice-Age right now. Thank the invention of Agriculture for that. It is commonly believed that Man has caused gloabal warming, that much is sure. Sadly, due to the lack of knowledge in the infant field of climatology, the scientists have no idea of Just How Much the earth will be affected. Some models even predict another ice-age. Not because of orbital variations, though, but through a shutdown of the North Atlantic Current. Those poor brits... :D

-Resident Mexican

[Wader Go]

Well I live in Australia, and aside from getting hotter in winter and more humid in summer, we are now in high level water restrictions, to the point where kids playing under a sprinkler is considered a sin.

It wasn't like this ten years ago. I think global warming is pretty conclusive.

[Fantasy of You]

There's little proof for man's part in the rise in temperature. Hardly any, in fact. The world is getting hotter, or the ice caps are melting doesn't prove man's guilt, it just shows something is happening.

cacafire, the diluting of the North Atlantic Current has nothing to do with man, or his industries.

[Domoviye]

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/01/if-you-dont-do-anything-else-today.html

Just something for people to check out. It will take some time to watch.
Not sure if I agree with all of it. But it raises some interesting questions.

[Spherical Time]

This site is very liberal.

What did you guys think of Chrichton's State of Fear.

I bet you were all gushing with praise and adulation. :)Yeah, something like that. My review is over here (http://www.writingforums.org/showthread.php?t=119).

[HellOnEarth]

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

Beautiful.

[Crazy Ivan]

Global warming is out there, and humans are to blame. As if a giant honking report that says it's our fault isn't proof.

[Vroom Vroom Daddy]

Ok, this story is a little gross, but true, and trust me it does have to do with the whole debate.
I had a neighbor who was a less than stellar housekeeper and therefor had a serious cockroach problem. A few months back they haul her out in an ambulance for carbon dioxide poisoning. It seems that when cockroaches mate they give off a small puff of carbon dioxide (a little heavy breathing anyone?).
So how much carbon dioxide can the average horny bug give off? Not much but when you consider that there were A LOT cockroaches in every nook and cranny of her house...
In case you missed it, here's the tie-in. There was a closed system (house=planet) with a bunch of tiny little creatures (bugs=humans) that got so prolific that they were in every room (room=continent) taken by themselves they were harmless but in mass they had the power to profoundly affect their environment.
Did the C02 level fluctuate normally? Without a doubt. But to say the cockroaches had nothing to do with it is naive.
By the way the post-script of this story is the house got bug bombed until the problem was solved.
Cosmic message anyone?

[ItalianStallion]

I agree...... Al Gore and some British dude are giving away 25 million to some one that can solve the global warming problem.....A device that takes the carbon dioxide stright out of the air...... alot of money

[Vroom Vroom Daddy]

I told you-Bug Bomb the planet until the problem is solved. Now give me my 25 million.

[Domoviye]

Heres an interesting video from Britain.
The Great Global Warming Swindle

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S1DujZ8P98&mode=related&search=

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Whwgq3Y59WE&mode=related&search=

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyj5oX83PlA&mode=related&search=

Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HA_omTEx-Q&mode=related&search=

Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZvvSp2CAnQ&mode=related&search=

Part 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90Di4DxHG4c&mode=related&search=

Finally Part 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlvBnLa7r2I&mode=related&search=

Watch it. Even if you don't agree with it, it helps clarify the stance of the global warming skeptics. Its at least as valuable as watching "An Inconvenient Truth", if you want to see both sides of the argument.

[HellOnEarth]

Dan Neil, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer


I am still celebrating the Oscar win of Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," but then the truth has been inconveniencing me for some time. Actually, I've been freaking out about global warming since the late 1980s. I've also been in a dead panic about: declining bee populations, industrial fishing, the African bush meat crisis, and the desertification of northern Africa and its effects on Caribbean coral. Between one thing and another, I've become quite the eco-weenie.

But nothing winds my stem like global warming. Never mind the "global" part of it. This is retail anxiety for me. I make it a practice to spend at least 20 minutes a day worried sick about crop failures and the collapse of the oceanic food chain. It's like yoga for neurotics.

Naturally, I've done the usual things people do to reduce the size of their "carbon footprint"—the phrase describing the total output of greenhouse gases (due to fossil fuel consumption) for which one is personally responsible. For example, I've replaced the light bulbs in my house with compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL's), those swirly deals that produce the same illumination using up to 75% less energy, last 10 times as long (10,000 hours) and save me about $30 apiece on my power bills during their cheery lives. You should too.

If every American household screwed in just one CFL, it would be like taking 800,000 cars off the road, or several Hummers.

In any event, I've got carbon OCD. I can't tell you how many times I've turned off the lights on my wife in the kitchen. I've recycled everything but the cat. I take Navy showers. And still I feel like I've got a Bozo-sized carbon footprint.

That's the trouble with personalizing global warming too much. In other areas of concern, I can take decisive action—I buy almost no African bush meat, for example. But short of vanishing from the planet, I cannot help but cast a carbon shadow, and it's making me just a little nuts. Now I find myself looking at grapes imported from Chile by Whole Foods and calculating the energy—and, ineluctably, the carbon emissions—that brought those succulent fruits to me. Mournfully, I've put those grapes down and pushed on. How many carbon-calories are invested in the calorie-free sparkling water from Germany that I like so much? Too many. Beef? Forget it. Between the methane from cattle production, the razing of forests for grazing land and the stupendous amounts of fossil fuel (and water) it takes to turn Bessie into burger, I can't bear the guilt. The juicy, savory guilt.

Trying to be a better global citizen is making me an awful party host: Please, try the millet. More tap water?

For the carbon-conflicted, there's hope. A company called TerraPass sells what amounts to guilt coupons, the funds for which go toward renewable energy projects. You can buy them at Whole Foods and have your grapes again. Drive 12,000 miles per year? You can offset your car's 20,000 pounds of annual CO– with TerraPass' $79.95 Road Tripper package. This year the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences gave each of the Oscar presenters and performers a TerraPass. If it's cool enough for Jack Nicholson, it's cool enough for you.

I recently bought two cross-country airline tickets on Expedia.com and ponied up the extra $33.98 for the optional TerraPass. Maybe now I can sleep on the airplane.

Still, if at any point I start to feel content that I've done enough to combat global warming, I need only turn on my 42-inch plasma screen TV, which I bought before I realized it sucked electricity like an arc welder. Oh Jeez. HBO boxing = loss of Alaskan permafrost. Great.

If there's a phrase for all this gnawing guilt, it might be greenhouse remorse: a singular dismay to have lived and luxuriated in an era of cheap, consequence-free energy. What a lucky and decadent generation I belong to. Now, despite all my swirly light bulbs and guilt money, I am fractionally responsible for the diminished world I leave to future generations. Sorry about the mess, kids.

The nice thing is that, at long last and despite the heroic efforts of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other disinformation mills, the fight against climate change is gaining some traction, politically and culturally. While Leonardo DiCaprio's declaration that the Oscars had "gone green" might have seemed implausible (hair spray is a greenhouse gas too, you know), the best thing that could happen to this issue is that it gets hitched to fashion and celebrity. Let's face it: Everybody wants to be like Oscar-winning electric-car drivers George Clooney and Tom Hanks. Almost nobody wants to be like Grover Norquist.

One day, hopefully, the incandescent bulb will be as sure a sign of social backwardness as missing front teeth and mullets.

I used to think I'd lived too long and that I should have punched out before climate change struck with its full vengeance. These days I'm hoping I live to see the day when we turn the corner on climate change, and I can start worrying about something else, the critically endangered mullet, perhaps. I've gone a bit wonky, it's true, but I'm feeling pretty good about it. I might be compulsively switching off lights, but at least I'm not in the dark.

Read and learn my would-be writers.